Have fact-checkers compiled a side-by-side comparison of each plaque’s assertions with historical records?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the supplied reporting that fact‑checkers have produced a comprehensive, public side‑by‑side matrix comparing every historical plaque’s claims with original archival records; the sources describe fact‑checking methods and challenges in historical verification but do not document such a compilation [1] [2] [3]. Fact‑checking practice and guidance exist for historians and journalists to do that work, and local practices around plaques mean any such audit would be fragmented and institution‑specific rather than centralized [4] [5].
1. Fact‑checking exists and has tools — but it’s a process, not a single database
Fact‑checking is framed in these sources as a methodical process of checking claims against primary evidence and expert testimony, producing categorical assessments rather than simply repeating local commemorative text, and practitioners emphasize approaching claims “like a prosecutor” to assemble proof [1] [2]. Manuals and how‑to guides for historical verification stress tracing assertions back to original records, recognizing derivative sources can propagate errors, and recommend triangulation with primary documents — the very steps required to compare a plaque’s wording against archival sources [3] [4].
2. Plaques are local, varied, and often honorary — complicating any single audit
Historic plaques are issued by a range of actors — municipal governments, counties, local societies and private owners — and many are honorary with limited legal protection or centralized oversight, which means there is no single canonical catalog that would make a one‑stop, side‑by‑side fact‑check straightforward [5]. Because design, vetting standards and archival support differ by issuer, a thorough comparison requires case‑by‑case archival work rather than a simple automated lookup.
3. Evidence in the record shows methods, not a universal side‑by‑side compilation
The supplied reporting includes demonstrations of how to verify historical assertions and why original records matter — from lessons on source criticism to the New Yorker’s account of intensive newsroom fact‑checking — but none of those pieces present a prebuilt, public spreadsheet or portal comparing every plaque text against archival citations [6] [3] [7]. Retro Report and other explanatory pieces describe trusted fact‑checking practices and the human labor involved, implying that such a compilation is feasible but labor‑intensive and rarely centralized [2].
4. Practical barriers: provenance, derivative sourcing, and human judgment
Historical verification faces specific obstacles noted in the sources: many published assertions derive from earlier works that may themselves lack primary support, counting or classification schemes can vary (as in medical plaque research), and fact‑checkers must judge ambiguous or interpretive claims rather than only hard facts — all factors that make a uniform, definitive side‑by‑side comparison of plaques difficult to produce and sustain [8] [3] [4].
5. Where audits do happen, they’re local and investigative, not standardized
When discrepancies are discovered, the work tends to be produced by local historians, preservation groups, or individual journalists who compare a single plaque or small set against records; the sources imply these are one‑off investigations rather than a coordinated, comprehensive fact‑check repository [5] [3]. Given the decentralized nature of plaques and the resource intensity of archival verification, a national or global matrix does not appear in the reviewed reporting.
6. Alternative viewpoints and potential agendas
Some critics of institutional fact‑checking argue that checkers can be selective or politically slanted, and that trust in official custodians of records can be misplaced — points made in broader critiques of fact‑checking and data handling — which suggests readers should expect variation in focus and thoroughness across any plaque audits that do exist [1] [9]. At the same time, practitioners defend rigorous, evidence‑first methods and emphasize transparency about sources and limits when assessing historical claims [2] [4].
Conclusion: what can be said with confidence from the available reporting
The sources describe the toolkit and standards needed to do side‑by‑side comparisons of plaque text against primary records but do not document a finished, comprehensive compilation of every plaque’s assertions matched to archival evidence; any such project, where it exists, will be fragmented, local, and reliant on sustained archival labor rather than an already‑published universal fact‑check [1] [3] [5].